Game of Thrones - HBO part 2 - Part 4

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]381337[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]378159[/split]

 

[ChickenScratch]

Nothing as drastic as killing Joff. We just see that Jamie really is the White Knight, not some dude in cream or off white or leather like on the show. I seriously think they are trying to keep him from wearing the whites for real yet, cuz even when he's in uniform it's still not quite right.

Remember he grew up on the stories of the great knights of the watch before him and he had the luck of being around some of the greatest knights till the king and Ned dies and Dondarion and Selamy are gone.

 

[mr. peasant]

Except that's what they're doing. I don't see your point. They're changing and adapting the story as needs-be for the limitations of television. They're still staying true to the overarching plot, because the intricate plot is what makes GOT unique. They'll adapt it to their sensibilities, pay-cable's, and the logistics and budgeting of TV, but they're not going to ditch the story all-together because then it just becomes a pointless endeavour to start

No, they're not. They are doing as you described - which is sticking to the events in the books and only changing minor parts only when absolutely necessary; sometimes to the point of occasionally lifting whole dialogue straight from the source material.

All other successful TV adaptations, meanwhile, take the base premise, characters and setting and run with it to do their own thing - straying completely from the events of the original source material after the initial setup. They sometimes come back somewhere down the road to borrow threads or subplots from the source material but since the character and story progressions are different, things play out differently, etc. By doing it this way, the TV version has the freedom to adjust their ideas and adapt to what works, the chemistry between actors/characters, interesting character reinterpretations, and what the audience responds to - just as how the creator of the original source material did whilst developing his/her own story.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I still don't see your problem with adapting a literary piece as written. I hate saying it, but if you've not read it you don't know the density of the material or how hard it is to adapt just from the way it is written.

How much should be cut from a War and Peace adaptation? Crime And Punishment? Le Mis? What do you want to change in these huge interconnected pieces of work where one bit changes collapses the whole house.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

All other successful TV adaptations, meanwhile, take the base premise, characters and setting and run with it to do their own thing - straying completely from the events of the original source material after the initial setup.

What successful TV adaptations are these?

 

[mr. peasant]

I still don't see your problem with adapting a literary piece as written. I hate saying it, but if you've not read it you don't know the density of the material or how hard it is to adapt just from the way it is written.

How much should be cut from a War and Peace adaptation? Crime And Punishment? Le Mis? What do you want to change in these huge interconnected pieces of work where one bit changes collapses the whole house.

Everything. You've outlined the very reason for this. As has been established through previous argumentation (e.g. can't ensure all actors are willing to stay the entire duration of the series, cost and logistics issues, pacing issues, etc) and from GRRM's own admission (focused on writing to tell stories that couldn't readily be told through the television medium), the creators can't guarantee that A Song of Ice and Fire can be adapted wholly and accurately as written. And since a slight change here or there can 'collapse the whole house' as you say, it would be much safer to have built a different house instead and duplicate only the original foundation since that's fairly solid and doing so far more practical.

What successful TV adaptations are these?

True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl, Smallville, X-Men: Evolution, Batman: TAS, virtually all cartoon adaptations of comics for that matter, all reboots of old TV shows... the list goes on.

 

[Roose Bolton]

You know, I'm definitely going to get flamed for this but...I dont consider Jaime's Twincest to be an "evil" act, I mean yes incest is wrong but in this case it was between to consenting adults and in Westeros there is president for this sort of thing with the Targaryen's marrying brother to sister for hundreds of years, passing the kids off as Roberts now..that's something to take issue with.

 

[The Sage]

This show makes me appreciate Tywin Lannister even more than when I read the first two books. I really dig the scenes between him and Arya.

I still need to finish the 3rd book. Hopefully I will before next season.

 

[FVD]

Regarding Jaime. He used to be one of my most despised characters after what he did to Bran. I was glad when he got captured by Robb. But now with what I've read so far he's really becoming more interesting as the Series goes on. Currently halfway through ASoS2 and man I just love his chapter when [blackout]he was getting answers out of his fellow Knights including Ser Loras Tyrell with regards to who actually killed Joffrey.[/blackout] Hope he reunites with Tyrion soon.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Everything. You've outlined the very reason for this. As has been established through previous argumentation (e.g. can't ensure all actors are willing to stay the entire duration of the series, cost and logistics issues, pacing issues, etc) and from GRRM's own admission (focused on writing to tell stories that couldn't readily be told through the television medium), the creators can't guarantee that A Song of Ice and Fire can be adapted wholly and accurately as written. And since a slight change here or there can 'collapse the whole house' as you say, it would be much safer to have built a different house instead and duplicate only the original foundation since that's fairly solid and doing so far more practical.
True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl, Smallville, X-Men: Evolution, Batman: TAS, virtually all cartoon adaptations of comics for that matter, all reboots of old TV shows... the list goes on.

So if it's too complex chuck the whole thing and call it by the same name because the people who have not read the books can feel in on it? Simplify it, streamline, make it more Tv friendly, might as well be Merlin.

Yes, I am aware they have adapted shows before (but thanks for pointing that out). But each and every adaptation is an individual case and cannot be treated or adhered to on the same level.

You cannot change stuff in a story that hangs on not the big battles like most fantasy or action scenes. The game is in the castle intrigue, the boring talking parts You and Matt seem to not like. Except that's the story, every line is important.

 

[mr. peasant]

So if it's too complex chuck the whole thing and call it by the same name because the people who have not read the books can feel in on it? Simplify it, streamline, make it more Tv friendly, might as well be Merlin.

Yes, I am aware they have adapted shows before (but thanks for pointing that out). But each and every adaptation is an individual case and cannot be treated or adhered to on the same level.

You cannot change stuff in a story that hangs on not the big battles like most fantasy or action scenes. The game is in the castle intrigue, the boring talking parts You and Matt seem to not like. Except that's the story, every line is important.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the 'talking parts' such as the interactions between Arya and Tywin. What I dislike about the situation is that I know nothing can come out of it since it's not in the books.

The strong point about the books is not knowing how things - even the big, major things - will turn out. That can't be the case for the TV series since it is known exactly how things will turn out.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl, Smallville, X-Men: Evolution, Batman: TAS, virtually all cartoon adaptations of comics for that matter, all reboots of old TV shows... the list goes on.

You can't use comic adaptations to make the argument that a show should bdo its own thing with the source. Comics are getting retconned and rebooted all the time. Trying to keep track of it all would be a waste of time for the writers. But something like a novel series like ASOIAF should stay as close to it as it can. Each book/season is not its own story arc.

 

[Poeman]

Just epic stuff when they played that music at the end of the episode...Awesome

 

[OsGom]

You know, I'm definitely going to get flamed for this but...I dont consider Jaime's Twincest to be an "evil" act, I mean yes incest is wrong but in this case it was between to consenting adults and in Westeros there is president for this sort of thing with the Targaryen's marrying brother to sister for hundreds of years, passing the kids off as Roberts now..that's something to take issue with.

I'm actually going to agree with you. The act itself is not "evil" as I recall their relationship started innocently enough when they were very young. What the twins did to carry-on and hide that realtionship after Cersei was married, that's evil.

 

[Poeman]

Btw, I actually considered episode 7 one of the best so far...The dialogue and acting was just superb.

 

[mr. peasant]

You can't use comic adaptations to make the argument that a show should bdo its own thing with the source. Comics are getting retconned and rebooted all the time. Trying to keep track of it all would be a waste of time for the writers. But something like a novel series like ASOIAF should stay as close to it as it can. Each book/season is not its own story arc.

At any one point, there's only one official canon for a given comic franchise.

Even going by your restrictions, all successful, multi-season TV adaptations (as opposed to a one-off miniseries that doesn't have to worry about future planning such as whether an actor will return/be available several years down the line) of books (i.e. True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl, Sherlock (if you're willing to consider it successful this early in its run)) depart significantly from the source material plot-wise; creating their own twists and developments).

 

[Matt]

Don't forget the most successful show on cable, The Walking Dead. It is following the general structure of the story but creating plots and twists of it's own and developing the characters to fit the medium rather than stubbornly sticking to the source material (no matter how ill fitting).

 

[DACrowe]

No, they're not. They are doing as you described - which is sticking to the events in the books and only changing minor parts only when absolutely necessary; sometimes to the point of occasionally lifting whole dialogue straight from the source material.

All other successful TV adaptations, meanwhile, take the base premise, characters and setting and run with it to do their own thing - straying completely from the events of the original source material after the initial setup. They sometimes come back somewhere down the road to borrow threads or subplots from the source material but since the character and story progressions are different, things play out differently, etc. By doing it this way, the TV version has the freedom to adjust their ideas and adapt to what works, the chemistry between actors/characters, interesting character reinterpretations, and what the audience responds to - just as how the creator of the original source material did whilst developing his/her own story.

And Game of Thrones should do this....why? Just because "all other successful TV adaptations" do? So what? Benioff and Weiss have said repeatedly they're trying to do something unique on television (Rome tried but failed under its own budget and vision after two seasons), which is create dozens and dozens of hours of cinema-quality television with one long story. The point is doing it differently.

Also, given how complex the stories are, I think it's best for now they stay close to the books. At least through the first four seasons. Look at True Blood. It branched off after its first season and went downhill quick by Season 3. I think B&W are going to be in trouble when it comes to AFFC/ADWD because they are awkwardly structured and kind of boring. There will need to be a lot of reworking those. But, as of right now, the way they're doing it is paying off creatively, critically and commercially. Asking for an arbitrary change is pointless.

 

[DACrowe]

Don't forget the most successful show on cable, The Walking Dead. It is following the general structure of the story but creating plots and twists of it's own and developing the characters to fit the medium rather than stubbornly sticking to the source material (no matter how ill fitting).

Yeah. And that show is kind of terrible.

I haven't read TWD, so I can't compare, but the show starts with a strong pilot and follow-up episode. However, by the end of that season it turns into just kind of unfulfilled potential. That's not even getting into Season 2 which for the most part was a bunch of poorly-developed characters (exceptions being Shane and Rick) sitting around a farm complaining about how much life sucks and futilely looking for a little girl.

I see the argument that you don't have to stay close the source material for a show to work. The first two seasons of True Blood were quite good (but the show lost its way and has petered out, IMO), but again just because nobody has tried something as ambitious as GOT doesn't mean it can't work. Thus far, it has, in my opinion.

 

[Marvolo]

I dont care if i get *****ed at for this but unless someone has read the books they dont have the slightest clue how these books should be adapted.

 

[Matt]

Yeah. And that show is kind of terrible.

I haven't read TWD, so I can't compare, but the show starts with a strong pilot and follow-up episode. However, by the end of that season it turns into just kind of unfulfilled potential. That's not even getting into Season 2 which for the most part was a bunch of poorly-developed characters (exceptions being Shane and Rick) sitting around a farm complaining about how much life sucks and futilely looking for a little girl.

I see the argument that you don't have to stay close the source material for a show to work. The first two seasons of True Blood were quite good (but the show lost its way and has petered out, IMO), but again just because nobody has tried something as ambitious as GOT doesn't mean it can't work. Thus far, it has, in my opinion.

I am of the opinion that it is not. In fact, I'd argue it has every one of the same problems that The Walking Dead has (strong first coupe of episodes, strong final two episodes, complete snore-fest in between filled with a bunch of characters I don't particularly like or care about). I'd argue that you are biased as a fan of the books and based on your critique of The Walking Dead you'd say the same thing as me if you weren't a fan of the books as they are essentially the same show plagued by the same pacing problems and general lack of likability among the cast.

I dont care if i get *****ed at for this but unless someone has read the books they dont have the slightest clue how these books should be adapted.

You're right, we can't say how they should be adapted. We can critique what they are being adapted into however and those critiques are just as valid as anything that anyone who has read the books says.

 

[DACrowe]

I had no problems following or enjoying the first season and I hadn't read a single page of the books when I watched it. Quite frankly, a ton of story progress happens every episode in GOT. Not all of it is in-your-face (though half the time it is), but major events keep happening. It has never had the feel of complete stasis and momentum-free repetitiveness that TWD had.

This season we've seen Arya go from hiding as a boy with no power on the King's Road, to a prisoner, nearly tortured to death, to the personal servant of her brother's worst enemy and holding the power of life and death in her hands. We've seen the rise of five kings, the death of one, the collapse of order in King's Landing, the rise of to power of Tyrion Lannister, Theon Greyjoy choosing to betray Jon for his unloving family, taking Winterfell and possibly murdering Bran and Rickon (at least murdering two children), Jon's whole adventure, etc. etc. I couldn't sum up the first seven episodes of GOT in a sentence. TWD S2's first seven episodes in a sentence? They're sitting around depressed at a farm looking for a missing girl.

So, I don't really think they're comparable. You just don't like the pacing of GOT. But, IMO, it is the best paced show on cable right now not named Homeland. I know you're going to kill me for this, but it has surpassed Boardwalk Empire, in my opinion.

 

[Matt]

You've just lost all credibility, my friend.

Little similar character moments can be pointed to on The Walking Dead. Besides, someone who has read The Walking Dead (like myself) can feel out the general plot of where the show is going and argue that you are wrong because everything that happened in season 2 sets up for **** in season 3 and later seasons. But does that really change the fact that season 2 bored you or make it's terrible pace better in your eyes?

I think as a fan of the books you are willing to give it a pass on the exact things that you criticize The Walking Dead for.

 

[flickchick85]

The Walking Dead loses points in most of the changes it's made from the comics, imo. The only change I've liked was the CDC bit. Everything else has made the story less compelling, imo, and the characters less likable.

That said, even if TWD were a perfect adaptation, I still wouldn't think Game of Thrones should follow its model. That's a story drawn from ongoing serialized comics with no end in sight. The books True Blood are based on are basically the same thing in book form. They're a bunch of little episodic novella adventures that just keep on coming. THIS story is drawn from a singular saga with a very specific journey and destination. It's like if they turned the Harry Potter series into a 7-season TV show instead of movies, they could never have been so freewheeling with the plots as True Blood or TWD have been with theirs. This is exactly like HP in that regard. All the plot points in this series are serving a bigger, complete picture, and for the purposes of this show, they're condensing it as much as they can while still giving the TV characters and scenes room to breathe on their own, imo.